Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

681–690 of 1001 posts

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#681

Post by robertlagrant »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #662
wilg wrote: post #656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like you could make that apply to any product right? If you can define the market as literally just your own product? Like if Joe's Coffee has a dominant market position in selling Joe's Coffee it would be monopolistic to use that to advantage to sell donuts?

There is a difference between selling donuts in the coffee shop and preventing anyone who drinks your coffee from buying a competitor's donuts.

> There is a difference between selling donuts in the coffee shop and preventing anyone who drinks your coffee from buying a competitor's donuts.

Isn't the resolution the same in each case? If you have an iPhone and you want to install an app from another store, you have to buy another phone. It's the same with these deals with Android, just overt.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#682

Post by jacooper »

bogwog wrote: post #505
harrygeez wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't fully understand. Are these functionalities baked into Android that only allow Play Store to use it?

Pretty much. Google Play services runs as like a root process that can (among other things) bypass all the security checks that the OS usually has. That includes those annoying update confirmation dialogs which make it impossible to install updates automatically without user interaction.

> Pretty much. Google Play services runs as like a root process that can (among other things) bypass all the security checks that the OS usually has.

Unnecessarily mind you, GrapheneOs proved that you can get the vast majority of GMS functionality without it needing to run as root. Even Gpay would work if google allowed it.

> That includes those annoying update confirmation dialogs which make it impossible to install updates automatically without user interaction.

This has changed with android 12, third-party sources can now auto update an app after a user accepts the initial prompt go install it.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#683

Post by asadotzler »

tavavex wrote: post #632
asadotzler wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they had restricted those APIs way back when, Android would have stalled and Tizen or some other platform would have eaten a huge chunk of the market they have today. You can't just change some important historical detail and pretend there would be zero consequences except the ones you care about.

How can you be certain that changing this detail would result in Android failing? Was it really app sideloading and allowing other stores that made Android successful? I think the biggest contributing factor was that it was made by Google (who had the money to both partner with other manufacturers and eventually make their own hardware), in combination with a lack of other options that'd directly compete with iOS (yo…

It's not about what made Android successful, it's about what made OEMs ship Android rather than something else. OEMs were conned by Google with an open platform that was then shut by secret deals with some of them. That cost the others who weren't in on the secret deals and it cost consumers in missed opportunities. Take away that scam, and perhaps Android never would have got the OEM momentum it did.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#684

Post by [deleted] »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #662
wilg wrote: post #656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like you could make that apply to any product right? If you can define the market as literally just your own product? Like if Joe's Coffee has a dominant market position in selling Joe's Coffee it would be monopolistic to use that to advantage to sell donuts?

There is a difference between selling donuts in the coffee shop and preventing anyone who drinks your coffee from buying a competitor's donuts.

[deleted]

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#685

Post by codingdave »

kulahan wrote: post #23

For anyone curious why Google lost: >Epic v. Google [...] hinged on secret revenue sharing deals between Google, smartphone makers, and big game developers, ones that Google execs internally believed were designed to keep rival app stores down. Without finding the same thing in Apple, I doubt this will affect Apple's case much, but of course I should mention I'm not a lawyer; I'm perfectly happy to be schooled if som…

It should be noted that this was a jury decision. Juries are instructed on the relevant law, but ultimately they can give back whatever answer they want, for whatever reason they want. So while we can speculate why the answer came back as it did... and that speculation may be correct if the jury was following instructions, we won't know for sure unless someone on the jury chooses to come forward and explain their decision.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#686

Post by gafage »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #662
wilg wrote: post #656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like you could make that apply to any product right? If you can define the market as literally just your own product? Like if Joe's Coffee has a dominant market position in selling Joe's Coffee it would be monopolistic to use that to advantage to sell donuts?

There is a difference between selling donuts in the coffee shop and preventing anyone who drinks your coffee from buying a competitor's donuts.

[dead]

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#687

Post by astrange »

cma wrote: post #440
astrange wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many business ideas does that guy have that make more than $1 million a year but would also be unprofitable after 30% app store fees?

It's more a portfolio of companies that many make less, but a few hits cover the investment in the rest (the standard publishing and tech investing story). If the hits are going to take a 18% rev loss compared to say Epic's 12% store, then that's 18% less funding for the rest if things are invested efficiently/predicted well for the portfolio.

Note it's 15% on the first $1 million then 30% after, at least for Google. So you're not losing money by being just above it either.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#688

Post by subpixel »

fidotron wrote: post #617

The impact of the OEM deals can not be understated, and actually account for Android not being dominant in TV or IoT because Google don't quite understand that other companies aren't idiots and they didn't want a replay of the phone situation. For instance, for a long time if you wanted to make a device with the Play Store on you could not make any Android device which did not have the Play Store, even as a third par…

I think you mean can’t be overstated?

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#689

Post by nicce »

ec109685 wrote: post #627
kulahan wrote: post #23

For anyone curious why Google lost: >Epic v. Google [...] hinged on secret revenue sharing deals between Google, smartphone makers, and big game developers, ones that Google execs internally believed were designed to keep rival app stores down. Without finding the same thing in Apple, I doubt this will affect Apple's case much, but of course I should mention I'm not a lawyer; I'm perfectly happy to be schooled if som…

Can you really say that was why they lost? A jury found Epic’s case compelling against Google while a judge did not with Apple. Is it a specific reason or a difference of opinion?

They are completely different cases because Apple controls the manufacturing process of every iOS devices in every phase. But Google does not control the whole product lifetime of the every Android phone out there.

On the latter monopoly abuse is bigger problem.

But if you make, build, control and design everything from bottom to top on the product, then it is less about monopoly abuse. It is just single total product.

Re: Epic vs. Google: Google Loses

#690

Post by nolok »

TerrifiedMouse wrote: post #250
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple doesn't need to strike secret deals to keep out alternative app stores because they've made alternate app stores completely impossible. If the result of this case is "you can have a monopoly as long as your device and ecosystem are 100% locked down", that's terrible!

> If the result of this case is "you can have a monopoly as long as your device and ecosystem are 100% locked down", that's terrible! Monopolies aren’t illegal. Only the abuse of a monopoly position to advance your interest in other markets is illegal. E.g. It’s not illegal to be the only seller of gasoline in the country. It is illegal though to bundle laundry powder with gasoline sales to corner the laundry powder…

> They decided Google has an illegal tie between its Google Play app store and its Google Play Billing payment services, too.

Just this part alone would applies to Apple the same way

Post reply on HN